Okay, read my reply to Jeff Lowder's posting (I didn't know he was the poster until after I had sent my reply), and then show me how that I have misrepresented or misinterpreted Geisler. To argue that Geisler was not claiming that the number of NT manuscipts, the time that they were copied, and the accuracy with which they were copied proves historical reliability makes practically all of his first speech meaningless. Please notice the quotation that I included in my response to Jeff Lowder. The speech was organized to show first historical reliability, after which Geisler began the second part of his speech with this statement: "In brief there is nothing like this kind of evidence for any other historical event from the ancient world. *Now, if the New Testament documents are reliable,* it remains only to show that they affirm that Jesus died and rose from the dead a few days later."
Let's just analyze those two sentences. First, "there is nothing like this kind of evidence for any other historical event from the ancient world."
What kind of evidence? Look as hard as you wish, but you will find that Geisler presented only three kinds of "evidence": (1) there are more NT manuscripts than any other ancient document, (2) only brief time gaps separate these copies from the originals, and (3) the copies are accurate reproductions of the originals. Can't you see that Geisler was using these three "arguments" as proof of the reliability of the resurrection accounts? If not, what did he mean by the expression "any other historical event from the ancient world"?
Secondly, he said, "Now if the New Testament documents are reliable...."
What was his proof that the NT documents are reliable? Again, I urge you to search the transcript to see if he offered any kind of "evidence" besides the three points listed above. He couldn't have meant "reliable" only in the sense that the documents were "reliable" or faithful reproductions of the originals, because his whole sentence says, "Now if the New Testament documents are reliable, it remains only to show that they affirm that Jesus died and rose from the dead a few days later." This sentence makes no sense unless we understand that Geisler meant that if the New Testament documents are historically accurate, it remains to only to show that they affirm, etc., etc., etc. Obviously, Geisler was arguing that his three points proved that the NT documents are historically accurate.
So I will ask again: where is the straw man?
Since I am in basic agreement with the rest of Clayton's posting, I see no need for additional comment on it, except to explain why I used Church-of-Christ doctrine as an example of why it is a misrepresentation of facts to say that textual variations in biblical MSS have had no significant effect on doctrine. First of all, I am a former Church-of-Christ preacher, so I am much more familiar with what this church's doctrine is than any others. I have heard their preachers say the same thing that Geisler did: variations in the biblical MSS have had no effect on doctrine. They have to know that this isn't true, because the loss of the Marcan Appendix takes away one of their most valuable proof texts on their doctrine of baptism. I think that it would be next to impossible to find a member of the Church of Christ who cannot quote Mark 16:16 from memory. It ranks along with Acts 2:38 as important scriptures to know from memory.
I have mentioned the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 (as did Clayton). This story is missing from many early manuscripts, yet this is the place where Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone." How many times have you heard that one quoted in a sermon about forgiveness? Are inerrantists going to argue that the absence of this statement from the NT would have no "significant" effect on the doctrine of forgiveness?
Farrell Till